Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!hplabs!ucbvax!brahms!gsmith
From: gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Challenger II & Science Fiction
Message-ID: <12365@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Fri, 14-Mar-86 00:58:05 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.12365
Posted: Fri Mar 14 00:58:05 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Mar-86 19:32:13 EST
References: <8603092000.AA25082@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: gsmith@brahms.UUCP (Gene Ward Smith)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 28

In article <8603092000.AA25082@s1-b.arpa> lcc.todd@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU (Todd Johnson) writes:

>	There's been a lot of trashing of science fiction on this net. I 
>don't like it. Arthur Clarke is a VIP at NASA. So is Robert A. Heinlein,
>Larry Niven , Isaac Asimov and who knows else. Why? Because among other
>things they explored the possible outcomes of numerous (including some 
>as yet unplanned) space missions. That's why Heinlein was required reading
>for the Apollo astronauts. The majority of people who write science fiction
>KNOW what they're talking about or have contact with people who are more than
>willing to supply them with copious detail. For people on this net who
>haven't even tried science fiction is suggest "RENDEZVOUS WITH RAMA" by
>Arthur C. Clarke.

    Speaking as one who has been reading sci-fi since starting on Lucky Starr
at a very tender age, I have to say that the vast majority of sci-fi authors
*do not* know what they are talking about. The four authors quoted are better
than most (and Clarke sometimes even writes well) but Heinlein & Niven have
plenty of BS, and most sci-fi authors much more. I *like* sci-fi a lot, but
I refuse to fool myself into thinking that it is much good either as science
or as literature. Sometimes the science is pretty good (Rama or Black Cloud)
sometimes the literature is good but the science awful (C.S. Lewis). Often
both are bad; sometimes the literary merit is less than nil but the science
purports to be good, and isn't (R.L. Forward: read my review in net.sf-lovers/
net.math). 

ucbvax!brahms!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
          "There are no differences but differences of degree 
            between degrees of difference and no difference"